|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The gross injustice to men deserves our concern but save your tears for innocent women."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The gross injustice to men deserves our concern but save your tears for innocent women."
This sentence seems to have caused a great deal of confusion. It can easily be read in more than one way. "Save your tears" could mean to make sure to feel badly for innocent women. OTOH it could also mean DON'T shed tears for innocent womem, "save" them for something more worthy.
Proceed with caution.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While I understand the point of the essay-- i.e. women, being moved to spite, are in their overcompensation being robbed of the experience of truly being women-- again, we see the feminocentric hypocrisy which simply doesn't respect men, despite being born out of the claim that men don't respect women-- the GALL!
Although she claims that men are the injured ones, her heart goes out to the women-- obviously, men count for less.
Imagine the response if someone said:
"The gross injustice to Jews deserves our concern but save your tears for innocent Germans. Our people did not deserve the inheritance of malice and spite that my generation of anti-semites heaped upon the shoulders of Jews."
or
"The gross injustice to blacks deserves our concern but save your tears for innocent Southerners. Our neighbors did not deserve the inheritance of malice and spite that my generation of racists heaped upon the shoulders of blacks."
Is it just me, or does anyone else notice the feminocentric selectivity hiding behind the veil of shame and fancy wording?
As usual, I can see right through this female-indulgent B.S.; if she were truly sorry, and really respected men equally with women, she'd be demanding amends for the injured MEN, not the women who earned their resentment through their deluded actions.
However, it's clear that her concern for men is seen as a mere technicality, as opposed to any real moral aberration, and she holds women as higher-class citizens in that her main concern is over retaliation against the perpetrators, while their original victims are seen as merely secondary.
Again, we see the glaring and offensive double-standard.
There's only two ways to slice this: either she's claiming diminished capacity on the part of women, or else she's claiming that men are less deserving of social justice, and she's favoring the interests of her own gender over the dictates of objective principle.
Once again we have evidence that women simply aren't as hard-wired to understand moral absolutes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is it just me, or does anyone else notice the feminocentric selectivity
I noticed it and pointed it out in the opening post.
if she were truly sorry, and really respected men equally with women, she'd be demanding amends for the injured MEN, not the women who earned their resentment through their deluded actions.
First of all, "if she were truly sorry, and really respected men equally with women, she'd be demanding amends for the injured MEN" and WOMEN.
Second of all, she's not demanding amends for "the women who earned their resentment through their deluded actions." She quite clearly states her concern for "innocent women."
Not all women are guilty of the crimes of feminism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
she holds women as higher-class citizens in that her main concern is over retaliation against the perpetrators
You obviously know very little about Erin Pizzey.
Once again we have evidence that women simply aren't as hard-wired to understand moral absolutes.
I know plenty of women who can understand moral absolutes, and plenty of men who can't. You sound sexist enough to be a feminist, except it's women that you hate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The gross injustice to men deserves our concern but save your tears for innocent women. Our daughters did not deserve the inheritance of malice and spite that my generation of women heaped upon the shoulders of men. The feminisation of the schools where all male efforts were seen as malignant. The natural attraction between boys and girls described as ‘sexual harassment,’ and the terrible loss of tenderness and romance that has been leached out of the lives of women.
You obviously know very little about Erin Pizzey.
I just read it like she writes it.
What we have left, thanks to this evil movement, is a vast number of lone women trying to keep what is left of family life going. They never asked to be foot soldiers in what has become a feminazi army.
Innocent nazi footsoldiers? You can't be serious.
I know plenty of women who can understand moral absolutes, and plenty of men who can't. You sound sexist enough to be a feminist, except it's women that you hate.
I only hate hypocrites, and you've exposed yourself; the only thing worse than a feminazi is a suck-ass, feminazi-loving ovulator like yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First of all, "if she were truly sorry, and really respected men equally with women, she'd be demanding amends for the injured MEN" and WOMEN.
But she admits that the women are the GUILTY ones, but that somehow they don't "deserve" the backlash; try reading it with eyes OPEN.
"Second of all, she's not demanding amends for "the women who earned their resentment through their deluded actions." She quite clearly states her concern for "innocent women."
Not all women are guilty of the crimes of feminism.
You obviously know very little about Erin Pizzey."
You obviously know very little, PERIOD.
I just read her like she like she writes:
The gross injustice to men deserves our concern but save your tears for innocent women. Our daughters did not deserve the inheritance of malice and spite that my generation of women heaped upon the shoulders of men. The feminisation of the schools where all male efforts were seen as malignant. The natural attraction between boys and girls described as ‘sexual harassment,’ and the terrible loss of tenderness and romance that has been leached out of the lives of women.
What we have left, thanks to this evil movement, is a vast number of lone women trying to keep what is left of family life going. They never asked to be foot soldiers in what has become a feminazi army.
Innocent nazi footsoldiers? You can't be serious.
"I know plenty of women who can understand moral absolutes, and plenty of men who can't. You sound sexist enough to be a feminist, except it's women that you hate."
I only hate hypocrites, and you've exposed yourself; the only thing worse than a feminazi is a suck-ass, feminazi-loving ovulator like yourself. As long as you're kissing her ass, why not kiss mine?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I only hate hypocrites, and you've exposed yourself; the only thing worse than a feminazi is a suck-ass, feminazi-loving ovulator like yourself. As long as you're kissing her ass, why not kiss mine?
You're not worthy of my time. Grow up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's what she said:
Our daughters did not deserve the inheritance of malice and spite that my generation of women heaped upon the shoulders of men.
Seems to me she is taking responsibility and saying that women have mistreated men for the last generation and specifying that her daughters didn't deserve to inherit this lie. It seems to me she is saying that the girls inherited the lie and the boys inherited the abuse. I don't see anything wrong with this. Seems right on to me.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Seems to me she is taking responsibility and saying that women have mistreated men for the last generation and specifying that her daughters didn't deserve to inherit this lie. It seems to me she is saying that the girls inherited the lie and the boys inherited the abuse. I don't see anything wrong with this. Seems right on to me. "
Then we owe Germany a BIG apology.
Oh that's right-- Germany doesn't have a pussy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can you see how the statements she has made can be seen in a variety of ways? Are you sure that Pizzey is the enemy? Friendly fire is costly. We need all the friends we can get. Referring to Germany is a smokescreen. How about responding to the post?
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pizzey states, "The history of this movement goes back to the early sixties... What was all too quickly revealed was an agenda that made my blood run cold... the women’s movement was bent on infiltrating and destroying family life. The enemy I needed to identify was behind my own front door... I was howled down and ridiculed. Within a matter of months after that first conference the subject of women’s liberation had become so fashionable that very few women would dare even suggest that they were happy to be at home and even less likely to admit that they were happily married."
The claim that feminism has been hijacked since its pristine and well-intentioned days in the sixties is flat out false. I was there. Make no mistake about it, feminism was as dishonest, hateful, and totalitarian in the sixties as it is today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday April 09, @12:09PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas.
What about in it's beginings, You know in Susan B. Anthony's day?
I was always told that at least then, feminism really was about equal rights for women. It wasn't UNTILL the 60s that it became the female-supremicast-movement it is known for today.
I could be wrong, Maybe female-supremacy was the goal all along, from then to the present.
Your thoughts...?
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Thundercloud,
As far as the beginnings of feminism, I've read enough to know that there was a great deal of anti-male hatred then too. AND there was a great deal of racism. Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now to dig up quotes, but we've discussed some of them on this board.
Feminism has never been the pure, fair-minded, egalitarian movement that its proponents claim it has been. As far as many people today declaring that misandry wasn't a part of true feminism -- nonsense -- feminist revisionist herstory. The belief in fundamental female superiority has always been a major component of feminism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feminism has never been the pure, fair-minded, egalitarian movement that its proponents claim it has been. As far as many people today declaring that misandry wasn't a part of true feminism -- nonsense -- feminist revisionist herstory. The belief in fundamental female superiority has always been a major component of feminism.
Just like pinko's claim that tyrannical imperialism was never a part of "true" communism, and
So what allowed the movement to succeed, if women are so keen on appreciating moral absolutes?
You can't claim to have moral responsibility while denying it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure we can all do our own analysis of the many tedious and all too typical flaws in this essay. I'm an admirer of Pizzey, as I admire anyone who speaks out against manhating, but she suffers from the same basic fundamental lack of perception as many other women who speak out on these matters. They consider themselves to be pro-male by their own reckoning, never imagining that men themselves may have very different ideas about this. They have absorbed unconsciously, and thus reiterate unknowingly, the feminist position which states that only women and women's concerns really matter. Consequently, like all feminists, they lack any conception of responsibility. When confronted with the awful truth of their utterly shitty behaviour it simply doesn't 'scan', and by a series of non-sequitors and constipated appeals to emotion they transform their whole perception of reality into the same lazy framework of denial they've been allowed to employ since they were little girls. Even Erin Pizzey, for all the good she has tried to do, has not confronted her most basic faults as a woman. Somehow it's all someone else's fault; if not those horrible men, then those horrible Sixties feminists.
Here's my analysis of the last two paragraphs of the essay:
The gross injustice to men deserves our concern but save your tears for innocent women.
How nice that 'gross injustice' deserves 'concern'. When feminists depict women as victims of 'gross injustice' it's used as the springboard for changing laws, inventing new crimes for men to be guilty of, telling any pack of lies about the past or present, and promoting the shitty tratment of men in general. There are no innocent men in the eyes of feminism; your sons were branded guilty before the sperm met the egg. Cry tears for innocent women? No, cry your tears for all the men that got fucked over, and make sure that your precious, darling daughters get it into their pretty little heads that there is not and never was any excuse or justification for what their dear mothers and grandmothers did.
Our daughters did not deserve the inheritance of malice and spite that my generation of women heaped upon the shoulders of men.
Inheritance? You haven't inherited anything yet. You think a few criticisms of the worst excesses of feminism - a few newspaper articles, some websites, some books, a rare TV programme - constitute an inheritance? You have your reasoning back to front. It's your sons that didn't deserve the malice and spite; they are the victims, not your daughters. Given half a chance your daughters would do the same and think nothing of it. Female perpetrators of domestic violence are harder to treat than male perpetrators because they refuse to accept that they've done something wrong. That's the real inheritance, not some man calling your daughters on all the bullshit their mothers filled them with.
The feminisation of the schools where all male efforts were seen as malignant. The natural attraction between boys and girls described as ‘sexual harassment,’ and the terrible loss of tenderness and romance that has been leached out of the lives of women.
Funny how we're supposed to put women's precious feelings on a par with the serious and systematic abuse of boys. The loss of tenderness and romance; are we supposed to take that seriously? The idea of sexual harrassment has ruined men's lives, destroyed their careers, wrecked their relationships, but we're supposed to worry about some woman not getting flowers on Valentine's Day? Boys are educated by women who are fed on a constant diet of anti-male bullshit, and we're supposed to wonder why they grow up with a cynical disregard for romance? Tenderness? Emotional needs? Why don't we just pathologise all that crap, then we can force-feed these dingbats on a Ritalin-like substance so as to correct their aberrant behaviour.
Next para:
What we have left, thanks to this evil movement, is a vast number of lone women trying to keep what is left of family life going.
I thought that's what you all wanted. I thought men were shit and useless and violent, stupid animals. Nobody forced you at gunpoint to buy into that line, you did so of your own free will. Family life? I thought the nuclear family was the source of all society's ills, with the husband and father being the most damnable of its evils. When you talk about "what's left of the family" what you really mean is the family sans husband and father. Even now it's unclear whether you really want him back, or just his money. Perhaps you think some guy should be happy to waste his life on a woman who can strip him of everything and get him thrown in jail on a whim. Hey, we all know looking at somebody in a funny way is domestic violence, right? Besides, sociologists don't use the term 'family', they call it a 'living unit'.
They never asked to be foot soldiers in what has become a feminazi army. They were not blessed with skills and college degrees that gave them economic power to make decisions when they were abandoned by their men.
They never asked, but they became foot soldiers all the same. You want a man in your life who loves you and respects you and cares for you? Easy, just dump all that manhating crap you buy into every day of every week, and take every opportunity to attack others for it. You want to make out you're so innocent while you watch the Stormtroopers march past? Next you'll be telling us you were only obeying orders. Oh, and they weren't abandoned by their men, they drove their men out.
They believed that the feminist movement was going to offer them choices. What they did not understand was that there were never any choices.
There are always choices, but a lot of them require effort and self-responsibility - just ask any man. What they really believed was that the feminist movement was going to hand them men's world on a silver platter. They were told they could have it all. They believed they were owed it because men had all the wealth, power and status, and that was unfair. They bought into the idea of choice for women precisely because it implicitly denied choice for men. Go and ask your garbage man about choice.
Men, realizing that they had been cast in the role of sexual monsters, retaliated. Those that didn’t pitch into the war of the sexes with relish, simply faded away.
Men retaliated? Oh, you mean they didn't just put up with that crap until women got bored with it and moved onto something else. I guess men's 'retaliation' is why the sexual harrassment laws have been rationalised so that something actually has to happen before a man can be convicted. Hey, and no woman would dream of accusing her ex of child molestation in order to deny him access, while at the same time the govenment steals his earnings so that she doesn't have to try any harder. The war of the sexes? Nobody is at war with women, and nobody ever has been. You buy into that garbage because it gets you off the hook. Gee, it's all his fault again.
Women facing the new millennium have few choices. One of them must be to take back our homes and our families from the clutch of the feminist movement. Fight back against the ridicule heaped upon men. Those men are our sons and hopefully, our future son-in-laws. Where are the men and women who want to preserve family life in this country. Are they willing to stand up and be counted?
Women have more choices than men, so the first thing they have to do is get their priorities straight. Your families and homes aren't in the clutch of the feminist movement, they're in your clutch. You're the one who's there every day, who sets the tone and makes the rules, not some cabal of feminists. If you want to take back whatever you feel you've lost, it's you that's going to have to change. You are not alright as you are, you are not perfect. Your beliefs and attitudes are not acceptable. Your version of the truth is a lie. Your emotions are false and misplaced. Oh, and here's the real stinger: the men and women who want to preserve family life are already doing it, and never stopped doing it. With typical feminist self-absorbtion you imagine all your personal crises to be all that's happening or that has ever happened, as if the world was born with you rather than billions of years before you were conceived. It's just a shame any of you ever wasted a man's time.
Amen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is basically what I was saying, but I get tired of drawing it out as you did and explaining every detail.
However direct logic often fails with women, and the men who hang on their every word however backhanded and self-serving, and so they seem to think I'm speaking in riddles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The war of the sexes? Nobody is at war with women, and nobody ever has been. You buy into that garbage because it gets you off the hook. Gee, it's all his fault again."
This is typical of women: faulting the male victim of unprovoked assault for "fighting."
(Although I got this a lot from cops when dealing with male victims of dometic violence as well; public sentiments allowed them to pick and choose the cases in which they would "get involved". However the implied result is the same-- second-class citizenship).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't say if Erin Pizzey wrote this essay or not but I can say that Erin Pizzey is a friend to men and our fight. Let's be careful to not judge Erin Pizzey until we find out a) is this her work and b) what did she mean by some of the phrases that are being described.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More misandry in the guise of writings by a so-called former-man-hater-now-turned-grandmother-ype who wants to "restore" the family.
Women like this remind me of some type of old Nazi who in his later years regrets all that he did and wants to now make amends in some way to the Jews and his other victims, but still thinks, you know, maybe those Jews and other victims still had something to do with the fact that they were persecuted, murdered, etc. What a load of hooey.
The western native-born birthrate is under 50% replacement and will stay that way thanks to the enthusiastic self-complicit brainwashing of western women. The western world, sociologically speaking, is doomed, and apparently, we deserve it. Any population that even under the near-ideal conditions we have in terms of food supply, shelter, resources, safety, etc. that can't even reproduce to replace itself deserves to die off.
Too bad for the many people never to be born to see the light of day, thanks to feminism and women like this one who helped install it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The western native-born birthrate is under 50% replacement and will stay that way thanks to the enthusiastic self-complicit brainwashing of western women. The western world, sociologically speaking, is doomed, and apparently, we deserve it. Any population that even under the near-ideal conditions we have in terms of food supply, shelter, resources, safety, etc. that can't even reproduce to replace itself deserves to die off.
Woah! What's with the self hating? You might not value your race and culture, but some of us do.
The way things are going, I fully expect there to be a worldwide economy collapse soon, maybe next decade. An incident like that will change everything, believe me.
Oh yeah, Don't be too surprised to see race revolutions across the west if not this decade, then the next. I've seen the signs, It will happen, It's just a question of when.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't be too surprised to see race revolutions across the west
I suspect France will be one of the hotbeds for race/religion revolutions in the near future. Here's an essay (well, more of a rant) about exactly that.
I fully expect there to be a worldwide economy collapse soon
Unless technology brings about some miracles (super efficient robots, for instance, that create a massive amount of wealth that's somehow distributed), we can expect collapse at the latest when the huge number of baby boomers retire and the relatively small numbers of their children and grandchildren have to carry the burden.
Feminism has created an unmitigated disaster and all of society will suffer from it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With you on this one Tom.
Yeah, I read that frontpagemag article, you're right about France, Remember the fuss about Le-Pen? That kind of thing can only intensify.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remember the fuss about Le-Pen? That kind of thing can only intensify.
And Pym Fortuyn in the Netherlands. Yes, this sort of thing will intensify and not just in France.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Women like this remind me of some type of old Nazi who in his later years regrets all that he did and wants to now make amends in some way to the Jews and his other victims, but still thinks, you know, maybe those Jews and other victims still had something to do with the fact that they were persecuted, murdered, etc. What a load of hooey."
You strike near the mark, but not the bulls-eye; rather, the nazi would pity the German soldiers of the time for the ill-will of those whom they butchered, whose injustices were given secondary lip-service.
It's the same old argument for denial of personal accountabilty for one's actions simply because they're women, which once again does nothing more than tell people they can do as they please, if they just contritely rationalize it ex post facto to any victims injured by purely irresponsible behavior.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday April 11, @05:05AM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
Careful, guys !! There's a difference between being anti-fem. and woman bashing.
Erin Pizzey has been a stalwart of non-fem. family conflict research for too many years. Respect to her ! Her point is that both men and women are victims of the feminazi army. Degrees of victimhood is what the feminazi's pontificate when they're caught out in a lie.
Move away from the notion that all women are to blame. Like every other political movement it's the tyrrants at the top that make the rules, the rest of the slaves suffer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Her point is that both men and women are victims of the feminazi army."
Yep, but likewise, not all German soldiers were members of the Nazi party, but for some reason I have to question someone who claims our hearts should bleed for mindless pepetrators due to their being recipients of the well-earned bitterness of their victims-- rather than the victims themselves-- simply on the premise that the perpetrators were "deluded" by liars; this falls under the liberal "absolution" argument that there are no perpetrators, only victims of hate etc. which is merely a disguise to deny individual responsibilty in order to constructively deny freedom-- or do so selectively in order to constructively enslave targeted groups.
You can't paint this ANY other way; you can paint over the truth, but it's still there underlying everything no matter how many coats they apply.
If she claims that women are so easily deluded into mindless hostility, then she can't claim they're equal to men in terms of moral appreciation-- that much is indisputable.
Likewise, if she claims that women ARE equal to men, she can't allow them to weasel out of taking their medicine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
incredibletulkas - I think you are misinterpreting what she is intending to say. Please tell me what she said to lead you to your conclusion below. I just don't see it. The Erin Pizzey I know is not interested in giving feminists any slack. I think you are mistakenly attacking a friend here.
"Yep, but likewise, not all German soldiers were members of the Nazi party, but for some reason I have to question someone who claims our hearts should bleed for mindless pepetrators due to their being recipients of the well-earned bitterness of their victims-- rather than the victims themselves-- simply on the premise that the perpetrators were "deluded" by liars; this falls under the liberal "absolution" argument that there are no perpetrators, only victims of hate etc. which is merely a disguise to deny individual responsibilty in order to constructively deny freedom-- or do so selectively in order to constructively enslave targeted groups."
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note the title of this article. Based on the title of this particular article Pizzey intends to discuss why she thinks feminism hurts women. It should be no surprise that the contents of the article conform to the title.
She has discussed in many other places how feminism has hurt men. She is a very strong supporter of men.
There is nothing wrong with noting how feminism has hurt women, especially when that is the stated topic of the article. In fact this is just one more example of how bankrupt the womens movement is.
Also, it is clear to any thinking person that male and female roles were once quite rigidly defined. It is clear that both the male and female roles were harmful to men and women in some ways and beneficial to men and women in some ways. It is good when anyone tries to point out these things in an honest and balanced way. The main problem with most feminism is that it is totally unbalanced, manipulative, dishonest, and even hateful these days. That does not mean that all persons who have discussed these issues are unbalanced, manipulative, dishonest, or hateful. When we say that all feminists are bad, we sound just as ignorant and stupid as they are. That is not a good way to bring thinking people to our side, especially when many are predisposed to believe the feminists point of view.
Ranting is good clean fun and great therapy, but best kept behind closed doors. Activism and therapy are NOT the same thing. Activism requires discipline, drive, facts, commonsense, and some well-focused aggression. Wild-eyed hysterics are more harmful to us than helpful.
Will
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the U.S. Supreme Court case many years ago,"Plessy V. Ferguson", the Supreme Court of the USA promulgated the "separate but equal doctrine" with regard to race. In a dissenting opinion in the same, a white Southern male justice, argued that the "separate but equal" doctrine would promulgate a "badge of inferiority" on blacks and other racial minorities and would encourage aggressive discrimination against blacks and other racial minorities by government and others both overtly and covertly. Since the 1960's our courts, including the US Supreme Court, our government at all levels, and the American culture have promulgated a "togeather but unequal" status on caucasian males. The result is clearly that caucasian males face more overt and covert discrimination by law and custom than in the "separate and equal" doctrine because of the same and because no objective of "equality of treatment" is stated as an end of the same. A "badge of inferiority" for caucasian males much more pervasive and aggressive than in the "separate but equal" doctrine is inherent in the "togeather but unequal" doctrine. Caucasian males have not faced the ugly fact of the same, in my opinion. They need to organize and take more aggressive actions to defend their rights and liberties such that they can remove this "badge of inferiority" .
C.V. Compton Shaw
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Caucasian males have not faced the ugly fact of the same, in my opinion. They need to organize and take more aggressive actions to defend their rights and liberties such that they can remove this "badge of inferiority" ./
Ah, but here's where the nuclear-weapon of feminism comes in: guilt, backed up by defamation and coercion on a scale that Jesse Jackson never dreamed.
A cleverly-designed catch-22 has recently employed this means (while conveniently working to remove it from their own armies), by which men throughout history have acted against their own best interests by branding them with common misandristic attacks, and even employing such emotional blackmail and stigmatizations which imply them to be cowardly slackers who dodge their "responsibilities to society" etc. while at the same time protesting these traditions which hinder them from furthering their own interests.
As a result, any caucasian male who protests such treatment immediately comes under more fire from all directions by a deliberate system of grassroots coercion and censorship, in a multi-generational work of psyops propaganda beyond the pale of any nation's military, even controlling the culture's language to neurolinguistically program its victims' very thought-processes.
Likwise, additional left-wing psychobabble acts as a fail-safe by hypocritically tweaking the very sense of masculine pride and individual responsibility that they claim to abhor, with the implication that those who protest ill-treatment are not only baseless in their claims, but moreover are merely insecure whiners hiding behind a facade of masculinity and fearing exposure by "strong women" etc and wanting to maintain their evil monopoly.
(I CAN'T make this stuff up, folks!)
As a result, while social customs of coercion and censorship exist which clearly enforce double-standards (quick: do a spell-check for the words "misogyny" and "misandry" and see which one it doesn't recognize), the very thoughts of the people are directed to target caucasian males; Micheal Moorer's book "Stupid White Men," a veritable Monday-morning-moron armchair-quarterback's playbook of history, clearly excuses itself by its choice of target, which merely expresses clearly what society implies daily. The fact that he states it so clearly, with so little repurcussions; the liberals and feminists have us THAT conditioned to salivate, cringe, or attack on command like Pavlovian Doberman lapdogs.
Whenever one of these liberals attacks other male-dominated cultures for being "backward," I look to our own culture of self-hating and self-doubting men cringing in shame and fear under the coercion and censorship of politically-correct feminist indoctrination and mass-illigitimacy which presents to them the results of any change.
Given the American icons of Hillary and Oprah, can you really blame them for wanting to keep the status quo?
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
